Science Panel's Work Elicits Praise but Uncertainty on Costs

Washington--Education leaders and policymakers are praising the
science-education report issued last week by the National Science Board
for its "clearly defined" and "substantive" recommendations.

But there was some evidence last week--in the terse statement by a
White House official and in the suggestion by one official that the
report's multi-billion-dollar recommendations took the Education
Department by surprise--that the executive branch was not quite
prepared to offer similar praise.

Budget Considerations

Most observers agreed that it is too early to judge whether the
recommendations will make their way into either the Reagan
Administration's or the Congress's budget considerations for upcoming
fiscal years, or whether the $6.5-billion, 12-year program could get
off the ground during an era of tight budgets. (See Education Week,
Sept. 14, 1983.)

At its Sept. 15 meeting, the National Science Board voted to accept
the report. Such a vote, however, does not imply that the report is now
the foundation's official policy.

Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell was preparing a response to
the report, but as of Sept. 15, the statement had not yet been
released.

As of late last week, George Keyworth, President Reagan's science
adviser, was the only White House official to comment on the report.
"By adding to the consensus that serious problems exist, this nsb
commission's report can be a useful reminder to the nation that we have
much to do before this problem turns around," Mr. Keyworth said in a
statement.

"The Administration is receptive to recommendations for improving
science and mathematics education, and the nsb commission's findings
will be taken into consideration," the science adviser said.

But knowledgeable observers suggested last week that the report may
be more than a "useful reminder." They cite several of its components
as important contributions to the debate on how to improve science,
mathematics, and technology education.

Among the key points of the report, they suggest, are its inclusion
of estimates of cost, its attention to the mechanisms--including levels
of responsibility--needed to put the recommendations into effect, and
its emphasis on elementary education.

In their official reactions, the two major teachers' organizations
praised many recommendations in the report but reiterated their doubts
about the use of differential salaries for science and math
teachers.

Continued on Page 14

Continued from Page 1

The report is "truly unique" in laying out a practical plan that could,
if put into effect, remedy the deficiencies in science and mathematics
education, said Lewis M. Branscomb, chairman of the National Science
Board and chief scientist for the International Business Machines
Corporation.

Mr. Branscomb pointed also to the report's attention to the role of
the primary schools, "which has been somewhat ignored," he said, by
other commissions.

"I like the report," said Frank Press, president of the National
Academy of Sciences and science advisor to President Carter. "I think
they did the unexpected, and they added a new dimension to the current
debate, namely specific recommendations." The discussion is "at the
stage where we have to go to specific programs, and this kicks the ball
off. That's a very positive contribution," Mr. Press said.

"I think it's an excellent report," said Bill G. Aldridge, executive
director of the National Science Teachers Association. Mr. Aldridge
said the estimated costs set forth by the science group for the major
elements in the 12-year proposal seemed "realistic"--or, in some cases,
too high. He added that the "investment" would have substantial
educational and economic payoffs.

"It did one stunning thing, which is make an effort to estimate what
kind of funds would be involved," said F. James Rutherford, chief
education officer for the American Asso-ciation for the Advancement of
Science. "Whether one agrees with the arithmetic, what it says is that
to do any sort of a decent job, it will take a substantial federal
effort, even though most of the costs are on state and local levels.
That was an important step."

Senator Jake Garn, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, said in a short statement following the
commission's briefing for Congress: "It's a very thorough job. It's
specific, it's candid. Whether people will like it and do anything with
it is another thing."

Mr. Rutherford also noted that the commission's recommendation that
the President appoint a council on educational financing was an
important step toward resolving the troublesome question of financial
responsibility. Without a deeper understanding of the dynamics of
education funding, he suggested, it will be difficult to build a
program of self-sustaining excellence.

In its briefings for members of Congress and the press, the
commission stressed that the federal role was primarily one of
leadership; despite substantial federal dollars, the primary
responsibility for improving science and mathematics education would
fall on states and localities, the commission members said.

"They recognize that education is a local matter, but in certain
instances, there are historical precedents" for federal initiatives,
said Mr. Press. "I think that the federal government is not taking over
local responsibility but taking a leadership role.

"It's a good compromise, that education is local but federal
leadership can play a role," he continued. "In any case, whether you
agree or not, you have specific recommendations and that's always a
useful starting point."

'Excellent Blueprint'

The National Education Association (nea) described the report as "an
excellent blueprint for educational progress."

Mary Hatwood Futrell, nea president, said in a statement: "The nea
agrees wholeheartedly with the commission's emphasis on building a
strong and lasting commitment to science in the schools--and backing
that commitment with federal dollars."

"I think one of the strong things about the report is that it points
to an important federal role," Mr. Rutherford said. "My guess is that
it is not what they set out to do, but it came out that way, and they
said so."

Many observers suggested last week that it is too early to speculate
on the extent to which the federal government can, or will, assume the
role outlined for it in the report. Several noted that the legislation
now pending in Congress is too far along to be influenced by the
report.

Mr. Aldridge suggested, however, that if the Senate approves the
bill that is expected to reach the floor within the month, a conference
committee could conceivably work out a final bill that incorporated at
least some of the recommendations. The funding level for the Senate
science-education bills stands at $425 mil-lion; the House has passed a
$400-million version.

Ronald Preston, an aide to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of
Utah, who sponsored the Senate science-education bill, said such a
compromise measure struck him as highly unlikely.

Mr. Preston suggested it was also unlikely that the Reagan
Administration would approve a science-education package that cost $1.5
billion during its first year. "Anything like that, the President would
surely veto," he said. "It would have to pass by an overwhelming
majority."

Others, however, were reserving judgement. "I can't predict how the
Administration response will go," Mr. Press said. "It's not an enormous
sum of money on the scale of things; the federal education budget is
much larger than that and the national interest at the highest levels,
in terms of politics as well as government, is clear."

Mr. Rutherford noted that the prospects for the federal government's
"picking up the whole thing ... are pretty slim in this Administration.
Maybe they would be in anybody's Administration for the moment."
Getting Administration support for the proposed level of funding, Mr.
Rutherford suggested, will hinge on "building up public pressure."

"I don't know how the politicians will react to this one," he said.
"At least it has some substance to it, and maybe it will turn the
debate away from the empty things like merit pay. We don't really have
to argue at the federal level how long the school day will be."

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.